Transcendent Discussion

2/19/2025 - Steven and I filmed a podcast reviewing issues for and against the divinity of the Book of Abraham: https://www.youtube.com/live/Z7PXg7boFoM?si=NavLKHd6o82areYI

Seth's Blog Link:

50 Issues with the Book of Abraham | TranscendentPhilosop

https://transcendentphilos.wixsite.com/website/forum/transcendent-discussion/50-issues-with-the-book-of-abraham

Steven's Blog Link: The Many Contradictions of The Book of Abraham: https://stevesmilanich.wixsite.com/thissaintstheory/post/the-many-contradictions-of-the-book-of-abraham

One of Steven's most interesting arguments was based on an array of themes and details found within the Book of Abraham that seem to correspond to details found in other texts written about Abraham. It would be curious why different Abrahamic texts would agree if there wasn't some mutual connection or valid truth behind them.

Moral Test Argument for Atheism:

P1. The moral test must rely on faith (lower than 100% confidence in God's existence), because the test is ruined by a perfect knowledge (100% confidence in God's existence); this is because if we knew that God was watching, we would refrain from sin out of fear instead of refraining from sinning out of our desire to be good.

P2. If 100% confidence in God's existence ruins the moral test by 100%, then 99% ruins the test by 99%, 98% by 98, 2% by 2%, 1% by 1% etc.

C1. 0% confidence in God's existence is the state that ruins the moral test by the least amount, maximizing the moral test's effectiveness.

P4. The state of having 0% confidence in God's existence is equivalent to a state of atheism.

C2. Atheism is the most optimal state for maximizing the effectiveness of God's moral test for…

ONTOLOGY:

There are two domains of life - the objective and the subjective (ontologically-speaking).

The objective domain of life is based on objects - materials, atoms, biology, anatomy. This is the domain of sex - the objective.

The subjective domain of life is based on subjects - agents with consciousness, identities, personalities, feelings, wellbeing, capacities for pleasure and pain. This is the domain of gender - the subjective.

You are missing 50% of your ontology if you ignore this distinction. Biology and psychology - both exist, both are important.

*Notice: I am not using objective/subjective in the epistemic sense.

1. “You can’t prove a negative”

We prove negatives all the time. In fact, much of human reasoning and scientific methodology relies on doing exactly that. Consider the claim: “There is no money in the safe.” How do you prove this negative? You open the safe and find it empty. The absence of money within the expected location is sufficient to conclude the negative—“there is no money in the safe.”

Similarly, the claim “there are no unicorns in my house” is proven by checking every room and finding no unicorns. This is not a philosophical mystery; it’s a straightforward application of logic and observation. Proving negatives is not only possible—it’s routine.

2. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

This claim becomes absurd when taken out of context. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence if there’s no reason to expect evidence in the first place. However, in contexts where evidence should be…